Re: [PATCH] hashed device lookup (Does NOT meet Linus' sumission policy!)

Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-07T12:13:33Z

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 02:22:31AM -0800, David Ford wrote:

BIND copes just fine, how would it not? I haven't heard any
problems with routing daemons either.

Bind knows about multiple virtual interfaces; but we can also have
multiple addresses on a single interface and have no virtual
interfaces at all.

I doubt bind knows about this nor handles it.

<pause>

OK, I'm a liar -- bind does handle this. Cool.

Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [127.0.0.1].53 (lo)
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [10.0.0.1].53 (lo)
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: listening on [x.x.x.x].53 (x0)
Jan 8 01:09:12 tapu named[599]: Forwarding source address is [0.0.0.0].1032

This is good news, because it means there is a precedent for multiple
addresses on a single interface so we can kill the <ifname>:<n>
syntax in favor of the above which is cleaner of more accurately
represents what is happening.

--cw